Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 69 references

A UTXO blockchain can host a hybrid data store whose objects carry ownership and support multi-object CRUD transactions under Future Now Snapshot Isolation, with up to 16× higher throughput than account-based blockchain databases.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A UTXO-based hybrid store embeds CRUD data objects in spendable outputs, supports multi-object transactions under Future Now Snapshot Isolation, and shows up to 16× higher throughput than BlockchainDB on a public Mainnet.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-12 challenge →

load-bearing objection Real UTXO-native data objects and multi-object atomic updates with Mainnet runs; the 16× headline is directionally right but rests on a soft cross-chain, validation-only comparison. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02677 v1 pith:Z2CRJFJW submitted 2026-07-02 cs.DB

SpendableStore: A UTXO-based Decentralized Data Store

Yinan Zhou , Faisal Nawab This is my paper
classification cs.DB
keywords UTXOdecentralized databaseSpendable Data Objectsnapshot isolationblockchain transactionsdata ownershipCRUDhybrid on/off-chain
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Permissioned blockchain databases trade away full decentralization, while permissionless account-based designs struggle with concurrent multi-object updates and ownership. This paper claims a different route: embed each atomic data unit inside a UTXO so that blockchain nodes themselves enforce integrity, immutability, and ownership. The resulting Spendable Data Objects support create, read, update, delete and multi-object atomic updates; an off-chain instance layer caches, indexes, and issues transactions while owners can always bypass it. Transactional correctness is reasoned about with Future Now Snapshot Isolation, which lets a local instance snapshot both already-confirmed blocks and still-propagating mempool or local writes at three graded levels. Experiments on a major UTXO Mainnet report up to sixteen times higher operation throughput than a BlockchainDB-style design on Ethereum, while preserving stronger ownership and multi-update atomicity. A sympathetic reader cares because the design shows how the UTXO model can turn a public ledger into a practical, owner-controlled data store rather than only a coin ledger.

Core claim

SpendableStore is a hybrid on/off-chain store that places atomic data units inside individual UTXOs, yielding Spendable Data Objects whose CRUD and multi-object updates are validated and ordered by permissionless blockchain peers; ownership and access control are enforced by locking scripts, and concurrent correctness is supplied by Future Now Snapshot Isolation, delivering up to 16 imes higher throughput than prior account-based blockchain databases while constraining administrator power.

What carries the argument

Spendable Data Object (SDO): a data unit whose successive versions are successive UTXO outputs linked by spend transactions; its locking script, via PUSHTX-style checks, forces every spend to emit a legal next version signed by the owner or writer, so blockchain nodes themselves guarantee ownership, integrity, and atomic multi-object updates. Future Now Snapshot Isolation supplies three graded local snapshots (blockchain, mempool, local) that balance concurrency against anomaly risk.

Load-bearing premise

The throughput and decentralization claims rest on comparing mempool-validation completion on a UTXO Mainnet against differently parallelized Ethereum-style baselines without waiting for block confirmation.

What would settle it

Re-run the same conflict-free and multi-object workloads to permanent block confirmation (or under realistic double-spend / mempool-divergence load) on both the UTXO chain and an account-based permissionless chain; if the throughput gap collapses or ownership can be subverted by a compromised writer without owner detection, the central performance and decentralization claims fail.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SpendableStore, a hybrid on/off-chain key-value-style store built on permissionless UTXO blockchains. Atomic data units (Spendable Data Objects / Object Versions) are embedded in UTXOs so that create/update/delete map to spend-and-recreate transactions with locking scripts that enforce owner/writer privileges; multi-object atomic updates use multi-input multi-output UTXO transactions. Off-chain SpendableStore instances cache and index OVs, construct Blockchain Twins of SS-Txs, and process transactions under Future Now Snapshot Isolation (FNSI) with three snapshot levels (BCSS, MPSS, LCSS). The authors argue FNSI prevents lost updates and conflicting forks by UTXO determinism and blockchain consensus, while allowing long forks under MPSS/LCSS. Experiments on BSV Mainnet (and Ethereum/Cardano testnets for baselines) report up to ~16× higher operation throughput than BlockchainDB-style designs for conflict-free updates measured at mempool validation, plus lower script/cost overhead and FNSI-level throughput/abort behavior under read- and write-heavy SS-Tx workloads.

Significance. If the design holds, the paper offers a concrete alternative to permissioned and account-based blockchain databases: object-level ownership and access control enforced by permissionless UTXO validation, multi-object atomicity without smart-contract sequential execution, and a tailored isolation model (FNSI) that exploits UTXO determinism. Strengths include a clear mapping of CRUD and multi-updates to spend rules, an explicit anomaly table for FNSI, real on-chain experiments with published addresses, multiple baselines (BlockchainDB, BlockchainDB++, Eth L2, Cardano SDO, Ordinals cost reference), and open discussion of LCSS safety limits. These are useful contributions for decentralized data ownership in supply chains, asset tokens, and similar settings, even if the headline 16× figure needs tighter qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [§VI-B–C, Fig. 6] §VI-B–C and Fig. 6: The central “up to 16× better throughput” claim (Abstract; §I; §VIII) is measured as time to mempool validation of 1,000 conflict-free updates, explicitly without waiting for block confirmation. Parallelism is also defined differently (SC shards vs. multiple Txn Managers). Combined with BSV Mainnet vs. Holesky/Arbitrum/Cardano testnets and unbounded-block BSV economics, this metric does not yet establish end-to-end superiority under the paper’s own durability/decentralization goals. Either reframe the claim as validation-path / construction throughput, or add block-confirmed and contended workloads as primary results.
  2. [§V-B, Table I] §V-B and Table I: FNSI’s practical safety for MPSS/LCSS rests on “instance committed” / “inferred committed” assumptions and on writers not fabricating temporary mempool disagreement. The paper acknowledges dirty/non-repeatable reads under LCSS and long forks under MPSS, but does not quantify how often real multi-instance or adversarial-writer deployments violate the “same Writer / trusted peer” assumption used to claim SI-like guarantees. A short threat model or experiment with concurrent writers and reorg/mempool divergence would make the isolation claims load-bearing rather than conditional.
  3. [§IV-B, §III-C] §IV-B and §III-C: Ownership and “true data decentralization” are strong claims. Safety arguments assume secure owner keys and that NameWriter / tombstone delete suffice against malicious SS-Instances. The manuscript should more clearly bound what a compromised Writer can still do (detectable value tampering, fee griefing, temporary mempool forks) and what recovery costs the owner faces, so the decentralization claim is not overstated relative to the hybrid SS-Instance layer.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Notation is inconsistent: UTxO / UTXO / TxO / OV / SDO / SS-Tx / BC-Twin appear with varying capitalization and hyphenation; standardize early.
  2. [§IV–V] Fig. 3–5 and the Fig. 5 pseudocode are helpful but dense; a short end-to-end walk-through of one multi-KVP SS-Tx under MPSS would improve readability.
  3. [Table II] Table II USD costs depend on fixed coin prices; state the date/source of prices and sensitivity, or report in native coin units as primary.
  4. [§VII] Related work (§VII) could more sharply separate permissioned DB-on-blockchain systems from permissionless UTXO inscription/NFT work; Ordinals comparison is good but brief.
  5. [§IV-A, §III, Abstract] Minor typos and wording: “boradcastTransaction”, “SpendableDO”, “RW A”, “itsUTxOmodel”, and occasional missing spaces after periods.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: design claims rest on UTXO protocol properties and measured throughput, not on self-fitted predictions or load-bearing self-citations that force the result.

full rationale

SpendableStore is a systems paper whose central claims (SDO embedding of CRUD/ownership into UTXOs, multi-object atomicity via multi-input BC-Twins, FNSI snapshot levels, and up to 16× throughput vs BlockchainDB-class baselines) are justified by protocol mechanics of UTXO validation/locking scripts (PUSHTX, deterministic outputs) and by direct Mainnet/testnet measurements of construction/validation latency and cost under YCSB-style conflict-free updates. There is no parameter fitting whose output is then re-presented as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors that forbids alternatives, and no ansatz smuggled via self-citation that defines the measured quantity. Self-citations (e.g., prior Nawab-group works on partitioning or indexing) appear only in related-work framing and do not underwrite the experimental 16× figure or the FNSI anomaly table. The comparison methodology (mempool validation only, different parallelization definitions, BSV Mainnet vs ETH/Cardano testnets) may be methodologically debatable for practical durability claims, but that is an external-validity issue, not circularity by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the paper’s own inputs; score 1 only for ordinary self-positioning against BlockchainDB.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central performance and decentralization claims rest on standard UTXO/blockchain domain facts plus paper-specific design choices (SDO fields, PUSHTX locking rules, FNSI levels, BSV as the evaluation chain). No fitted scientific constants; free parameters are engineering knobs (parallel managers, snapshot level, txn size) that affect measured TPS but are not hidden in a derivation.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of parallel transaction managers / SC shards
    Varied 1–16 (or 1–4 for baselines) to report scalability and peak ~90 TPS validation throughput; chosen experimental knobs that drive the headline throughput curves (§VI-C–E).
  • SS-Tx size X and read/write mix
    Fixed mixes (e.g., size 6 with X−1 reads; write-all-X) define abort rates and which FNSI level “wins”; workload parameters, not physical constants (§VI-D–E).
  • Coin price assumptions for USD cost table
    Historical averages $3000 ETH / $0.5 ADA / $20 BSV (and optional $100k BTC) convert byte costs to USD in Table II; affect cost comparison narrative only.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption A UTXO can be spent at most once; double-spend and invalid unlock scripts are rejected by mining nodes, yielding deterministic atomic multi-input/output outcomes.
    Foundation for SDO lineage, multi-update atomicity, and prevention of lost updates (§II-B, §III-D, §V-B).
  • domain assumption PUSHTX-style locking scripts can enforce that outputs carry required SDO fields and that only owner/writer signatures authorize legal operations.
    Required for stateful SDO CRUD on UTXO chains (§II-A, §III-B–C; cites Zhang PUSHTX).
  • domain assumption Permissionless full nodes and fee incentives keep SDO history available and queryable with Merkle/SPV proofs.
    Underpins availability, durability, and verifiable reads without trusting SS-Instances (§III-E, §IV-B).
  • domain assumption Between blocks, independent SS-Instances may hold non-identical mempool views; a new block is a global conflict-resolution checkpoint for write-write conflicts.
    Motivates FNSI and long-fork vs conflicting-fork analysis (§V).
  • ad hoc to paper Mempool validation without block confirmation is a meaningful primary performance metric for comparing blockchain databases.
    Explicit experimental choice in §VI-B; drives the 16× claim relative to waiting for consensus finality.
  • ad hoc to paper BSV Mainnet (unbounded block size, script capabilities) is a representative permissionless UTXO substrate for the claimed practicality gains.
    Authors justify BSV over BTC for size limits and budget (§VI-B); generalization to other UTXO chains is assumed rather than multi-Mainnet proven.
invented entities (3)
  • Spendable Data Object (SDO) / Object Version (OV) independent evidence
    purpose: Atomic data unit as a linked list of spendable TxOs carrying UID, key, value, owner, writer.
    Core data model of the paper; implemented as scripts on chain, so engineering construct with on-chain existence rather than a physical postulate.
  • Future Now Snapshot Isolation (FNSI) with BCSS/MPSS/LCSS levels no independent evidence
    purpose: Isolation model for SS-Txs under asynchronous blockchain propagation and local futures.
    New concurrency abstraction; evidence is anomaly analysis and workload experiments, not external formal verification.
  • Blockchain Twin (BC-Twin) of an SS-Tx independent evidence
    purpose: Map a multi-query database transaction to one UTXO transaction carrying writes (optionally all reads for SR).
    Design mapping used throughout §IV–V; observable as constructed transactions.

reviewed 2026-07-12 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SpendableStore: A UTXO-based Decentralized Data Store." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z2CRJFJW

@misc{pith2026260702677,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SpendableStore: A UTXO-based Decentralized Data Store},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z2CRJFJW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02677}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The literature on blockchain-based databases is divided into permissioned blockchains and permissionless account-based blockchains. However, the former is not fully decentralized, and the latter suffers from challenges in scalability and practicality. We propose SpendableStore, a hybrid on/off-chain database that operates on top of permissionless UTXO-based blockchains as a novel approach to the problem of data decentralization. Our design integrates atomic data units into individual UTXOs to create a new blockchain concept called Spendable Data Objects that perform traditional CRUD operations. The integrity, immutability, and ownership of these Spendable Data Objects are safeguarded directly by the blockchain peer nodes, thus constraining the power of database administrators to achieve true data decentralization. We further support database transactions and propose an isolation mechanism called Future Now Snapshot Isolation to reason about transactional correctness in SpendableStore. We performed experiments on a major blockchain's Mainnet and observed up to 16x better throughput compared to a state-of-the-art blockchain-based database.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02677 by Faisal Nawab, Yinan Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Blockchain Structure. tailored variant of the snapshot isolation guarantee to pro￾vide transactional correctness when executing transactions in decentralized database systems. (4) We conduct experiments on permissionless blockchains to show that SpendableStore outperforms the existing data decentralization solutions in terms of transaction processing throughput and cost while providing a higher level of de… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Create and Update a SpendableDO. Object (SDO). And we refer to a TxO version of a SDO as an Output Version or, equivalently, an Object Version (OV). The OVs of a SDO always form a singly-linked append-only list on the blockchain, which manifests the complete lineage of the SDO. This is because each OV can be spent only once, and the transaction spending it always outputs the successive OV. The current stat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: SpendableStore System Model. A. System Model Three types of entities participate in the SpendableStore system: the blockchain, the SpendableStore instances (SS￾Instance), and the data owners. The blockchain passively serves as the storage, backup, and access control layer. The SS￾Instances act as the query processing, optimization, and trans￾action management layer. The data owners are like traditional dat… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SpendableStore Instance Internal Structure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SS-Tx Processing. queries as a SpendableStore-transaction (SS-Tx) to differentiate it from UTxO-blockchain transactions. If an SS-Tx is not read￾only, a blockchain transaction must be constructed to carry out the corresponding SDO operation(s). We formally define this blockchain transaction as the Blockchain Twin (BC-Twin) of the SS-Tx. For an SS-Tx that updates multiple KVPs, its BC￾Twin will be a multi-u… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Baseline Comparison. (BcDB++), BlockchainDB++ on Ethereum Layer-2 (EthL2), Cardano-based SDO (ADA), and SpendableStore (SS) — with a workload containing 1,000 conflict-free update operations. We used this workload in favor of the Ethereum-based designs because the read operation in SpendableStore is much faster as we leverage local caching of the blockchain, whereas they need to send read requests through … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Read Heavy Workload (var. Concurrency Level). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Read Heavy Workload (var. Txn Size). D. Read-Heavy Workload In the following two experiments, we evaluate Spendable￾Store’s transaction processing ability with read-heavy work￾loads that contain a small amount of write-write conflicting SS￾Txs. To prepare for the workloads, we populated the database by deploying 5000 SDOs to the blockchain. We define X as the size of a SS-Tx. We make each SS-Tx in the work… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Write Heavy Workload (var. Txn Size). workloads that contain many write-write conflicting SS-Txs. The database has the same 5000 SDOs as in the previous experiments. We make each SS-Tx in the workload perform a read followed by a write on X number of SDOs chosen uniformly at random from the 5000, i.e., its BC-Twin has X input-output OV pairs. Each workload consists of 512 different SS-Tx of size X. In eac… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system

    Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Decentralized business review, 2008

    2008

  2. [2]

    The byzantine generals problem

    Leslie Lamport, Robert Shostak, and Marshall Pease. The byzantine generals problem. InConcurrency: the works of leslie lamport, pages 203–226. 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    Notes on blockchain database systems

    Henry F Korth. Notes on blockchain database systems. 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Rapidchain: Scaling blockchain via full sharding

    Mahdi Zamani, Mahnush Movahedi, and Mariana Raykova. Rapidchain: Scaling blockchain via full sharding. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, pages 931–948, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Pelopartition: Im- proving blockchain resilience to network partitioning

    Juncheng Fang, Farzad Habibi, Kevin Bruhwiler, Fayzah Alshammari, Abhishek Singh, Yinan Zhou, and Faisal Nawab. Pelopartition: Im- proving blockchain resilience to network partitioning. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain), pages 274–281, 2022.doi:10.1109/Blockchain55522.2022.00045

    doi:10.1109/blockchain55522.2022.00045 2022

  6. [6]

    Sidechain technologies in blockchain networks: An examination and state-of-the-art review.Jour- nal of Network and Computer Applications, 149:102471, 2020

    Amritraj Singh, Kelly Click, Reza M Parizi, Qi Zhang, Ali Dehghan- tanha, and Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo. Sidechain technologies in blockchain networks: An examination and state-of-the-art review.Jour- nal of Network and Computer Applications, 149:102471, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Slimchain: Scaling blockchain transactions through off-chain storage and parallel process- ing.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 14(11):2314–2326, 2021

    Cheng Xu, Ce Zhang, Jianliang Xu, and Jian Pei. Slimchain: Scaling blockchain transactions through off-chain storage and parallel process- ing.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 14(11):2314–2326, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Latte: Visual construction of smart contracts

    Sean Tan, Sourav S Bhowmick, Huey Eng Chua, and Xiaokui Xiao. Latte: Visual construction of smart contracts. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 2713–2716, 2020

    2020

  9. [9]

    Smartinspect: solidity smart contract inspector

    Santiago Bragagnolo, Henrique Rocha, Marcus Denker, and St ´ephane Ducasse. Smartinspect: solidity smart contract inspector. In2018 International workshop on blockchain oriented software engineering (IWBOSE), pages 9–18. Ieee, 2018

    2018

  10. [10]

    Chimeric ledgers: Translating and unifying utxo- based and account-based cryptocurrencies.Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2018

    Joachim Zahnentferner. Chimeric ledgers: Translating and unifying utxo- based and account-based cryptocurrencies.Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2018

    2018

  11. [11]

    Utxo-vs account-based smart con- tract blockchain programming paradigms

    Lars Br ¨unjes and Murdoch J Gabbay. Utxo-vs account-based smart con- tract blockchain programming paradigms. InLeveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Applications: 9th In- ternational Symposium on Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, ISoLA 2020, Rhodes, Greece, October 20–30, 2020, Proceedings, Part III 9, pages 73–...

    2020

  12. [12]

    The volatility of bitcoin and its role as a medium of exchange and a store of value.Empirical Economics, 61(5):2663–2683, 2021

    Dirk G Baur and Thomas Dimpfl. The volatility of bitcoin and its role as a medium of exchange and a store of value.Empirical Economics, 61(5):2663–2683, 2021

    2021

  13. [13]

    Virtual currency bitcoin in the scope of money definition and store of value.Procedia Economics and Finance, 30:409–416, 2015

    Max Kub ´at. Virtual currency bitcoin in the scope of money definition and store of value.Procedia Economics and Finance, 30:409–416, 2015

    2015

  14. [14]

    Is cryptocurrency money? three empirical studies analyzing medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account

    Jens Mattke, Christian Maier, and Lea Reis. Is cryptocurrency money? three empirical studies analyzing medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account. InProceedings of the 2020 on Computers and People Research Conference, pages 26–35, 2020

    2020

  15. [15]

    Potential of blockchain technology in supply chain management: a literature review.International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 49(9):881–900, 2019

    Amulya Gurtu and Jestin Johny. Potential of blockchain technology in supply chain management: a literature review.International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 49(9):881–900, 2019

    2019

  16. [16]

    Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management.International journal of production research, 57(7):2117– 2135, 2019

    Sara Saberi, Mahtab Kouhizadeh, Joseph Sarkis, and Lejia Shen. Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management.International journal of production research, 57(7):2117– 2135, 2019

    2019

  17. [17]

    Blockchain meets metaverse and digital asset management: A comprehensive survey.Ieee Access, 11:26258–26288, 2023

    Vu Tuan Truong, Long Le, and Dusit Niyato. Blockchain meets metaverse and digital asset management: A comprehensive survey.Ieee Access, 11:26258–26288, 2023

    2023

  18. [18]

    Towards global asset management in blockchain systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09359, 2019

    Victor Zakhary, Mohammad Javad Amiri, Sujaya Maiyya, Divyakant Agrawal, and Amr El Abbadi. Towards global asset management in blockchain systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09359, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1905

  19. [19]

    Economic impact potential of real-world asset tokenization

    Markuss Baltais, Evita Sondore, Talis J Putnin ¸ ˇsa, and Jonathan R Karlsen. Economic impact potential of real-world asset tokenization. UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney, Report, pages 2024–06, 2024

    2024

  20. [20]

    On blockchain and its integration with iot

    Ana Reyna, Cristian Mart ´ın, Jaime Chen, Enrique Soler, and Manuel D´ıaz. On blockchain and its integration with iot. challenges and opportunities.Future generation computer systems, 88:173–190, 2018

    2018

  21. [21]

    Blockchain in iot systems: End-to-end delay evaluation.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(5):8332–8344, 2019.doi:10.1109/JIOT.2019.2917226

    Maha Alaslani, Faisal Nawab, and Basem Shihada. Blockchain in iot systems: End-to-end delay evaluation.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(5):8332–8344, 2019.doi:10.1109/JIOT.2019.2917226

    work page doi:10.1109/jiot.2019.2917226 2019

  22. [22]

    Blockchain technology in healthcare: a systematic review

    Cornelius C Agbo, Qusay H Mahmoud, and J Mikael Eklund. Blockchain technology in healthcare: a systematic review. InHealthcare, volume 7, page 56. MDPI, 2019

    2019

  23. [23]

    Blockchain technology use cases in healthcare

    Peng Zhang, Douglas C Schmidt, Jules White, and Gunther Lenz. Blockchain technology use cases in healthcare. InAdvances in com- puters, volume 111, pages 1–41. Elsevier, 2018

    2018

  24. [24]

    An economy of ai agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.01063, 2025

    Gillian K Hadfield and Andrew Koh. An economy of ai agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.01063, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Pushtx and its building blocks

    Zhang. Pushtx and its building blocks. https://nchain.com/wp- content/uploads/2022/03/WP1605 PUSHTX-and-its-Building- Blocks.pdf, 2021. Accessed: 2026-01-20

    2022

  26. [26]

    Blockchaindb: a shared database on blockchains

    Muhammad El-Hindi, Carsten Binnig, Arvind Arasu, Donald Kossmann, and Ravi Ramamurthy. Blockchaindb: a shared database on blockchains. Proc. VLDB Endow., 12(11):1597–1609, July 2019.doi:10.14778/ 3342263.3342636

    arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Pushdata opcodes, 2022

    BitcoinSV Community. Pushdata opcodes, 2022. Accessed: 2024-10-15. URL: https://wiki.bitcoinsv.io/index.php/Pushdata Opcodes

    2022

  28. [28]

    On or off the blockchain? insights on off-chaining computation and data

    Jacob Eberhardt and Stefan Tai. On or off the blockchain? insights on off-chaining computation and data. InService-Oriented and Cloud Computing: 6th IFIP WG 2.14 European Conference, ESOCC 2017, Oslo, Norway, September 27-29, 2017, Proceedings 6, pages 3–15. Springer, 2017

    2017

  29. [29]

    Aguilera, and Jinyang Li

    Yair Sovran, Russell Power, Marcos K. Aguilera, and Jinyang Li. Transactional storage for geo-replicated systems. InProceedings of the Twenty-Third ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP ’11, page 385–400, New York, NY , USA, 2011. Association for Computing Machinery.doi:10.1145/2043556.2043592

    doi:10.1145/2043556.2043592 2011

  30. [30]

    Generalized snapshot isolation and a prefix-consistent implementation

    Sameh Elnikety, Fernando Pedone, and Willy Zwaenepoel. Generalized snapshot isolation and a prefix-consistent implementation. 2004

    2004

  31. [31]

    Opcodes used in bitcoin script, 2019

    BSV Community. Opcodes used in bitcoin script, 2019. Accessed: 2026-01-20. URL: https://wiki.bitcoinsv.io/index.php/Opcodes used in Bitcoin Script

    2019

  32. [32]

    Op checksig beyong signature validation: a more effi- cient pushtx, 2024

    Barbacovi. Op checksig beyong signature validation: a more effi- cient pushtx, 2024. Accessed: 2026-01-20. URL: https://hackmd.io/ @federicobarbacovi/H1DqEzfm1l

    2024

  33. [33]

    Gorillapool junglebus, 2024

    Gorilla Pool. Gorillapool junglebus, 2024. Accessed: 2026-01-20. URL: https://junglebus.gorillapool.io/

    2024

  34. [34]

    Erc-20 token standard, 2024

    Ethereum Community. Erc-20 token standard, 2024. Accessed: 2026- 01-20. URL: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/standards/tokens/ erc-20/

    2024

  35. [35]

    The modern smart contract platform for cardano,

    Cardano Community. The modern smart contract platform for cardano,

  36. [36]

    URL: https://aiken-lang.org/

    Accessed: 2026-01-20. URL: https://aiken-lang.org/

    2026

  37. [37]

    Cardano doc, 2020

    Cardano Community. Cardano doc, 2020. Accessed: 2026-01-20. URL: https://cardano.org/

    2020

  38. [38]

    Holesky testnet, 2024

    Ethereum Community. Holesky testnet, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-15. URL: https://holesky.etherscan.io/

    2024

  39. [39]

    Arbitrum chains overview, 2020

    Arbitrum Community. Arbitrum chains overview, 2020. Accessed: 2026- 01-20. URL: https://docs.arbitrum.io/build-decentralized-apps/public- chains

    2020

  40. [40]

    Cardano testnets, 2022

    Cardano Community. Cardano testnets, 2022. Accessed: 2026-01-20. URL: https://developers.cardano.org/docs/get-started/networks/testnets/

    2022

  41. [41]

    Bsv blockchain, 2024

    BitcoinSV Community. Bsv blockchain, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-15. URL: https://www.bsvblockchain.org/

    2024

  42. [42]

    Hierarchical interactions between ethereum smart contracts across test- nets

    Yao-Chieh Hu, Ting-Ting Lee, Dimitris Chatzopoulos, and Pan Hui. Hierarchical interactions between ethereum smart contracts across test- nets. InProceedings of the 1st Workshop on Cryptocurrencies and Blockchains for Distributed Systems, pages 7–12, 2018

    2018

  43. [43]

    Txprobe: Discovering bitcoin’s network topology using orphan transactions

    Sergi Delgado-Segura, Surya Bakshi, Cristina P ´erez-Sol`a, James Litton, Andrew Pachulski, Andrew Miller, and Bobby Bhattacharjee. Txprobe: Discovering bitcoin’s network topology using orphan transactions. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security: 23rd International Confer- ence, FC 2019, Frigate Bay, St. Kitts and Nevis, February 18–22, 2019, Revised...

    2019

  44. [44]

    Wedgeblock: An off-chain secure logging platform for blockchain applications

    Abhishek A Singh, Yinan Zhou, Mohammad Sadoghi, Sharad Mehrotra, Shantanu Sharma, and Faisal Nawab. Wedgeblock: An off-chain secure logging platform for blockchain applications. InEDBT, pages 526–539, 2023

    2023

  45. [45]

    Hybrid blockchain database systems: design and performance.Proc

    Zerui Ge, Dumitrel Loghin, Beng Chin Ooi, Pingcheng Ruan, and Tianwen Wang. Hybrid blockchain database systems: design and performance.Proc. VLDB Endow., 15(5):1092–1104, January 2022. doi:10.14778/3510397.3510406

    doi:10.14778/3510397.3510406 2022

  46. [46]

    Cooper, Adam Silberstein, Erwin Tam, Raghu Ramakrishnan, and Russell Sears

    Brian F. Cooper, Adam Silberstein, Erwin Tam, Raghu Ramakrishnan, and Russell Sears. Benchmarking cloud serving systems with ycsb. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, SoCC ’10, page 143–154, New York, NY , USA, 2010. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1807128.1807152

    doi:10.1145/1807128.1807152 2010

  47. [47]

    Ethereum’s scalability crisis: The execution layer,

    Fuel Labs. Ethereum’s scalability crisis: The execution layer,

  48. [48]

    URL: https://fuel.mirror.xyz/uQxyb1o Gu4oBSyT1ULuqRu7ffmIXuZtx9ux8ndFMXs

    Accessed: 2024-10-15. URL: https://fuel.mirror.xyz/uQxyb1o Gu4oBSyT1ULuqRu7ffmIXuZtx9ux8ndFMXs

    2024

  49. [49]

    Bzip: A compact data memory system for utxo-based blockchains.Journal of Systems Architecture, 109:101809, 2020

    Shuhao Jiang, Jiajun Li, Shijun Gong, Junchao Yan, Guihai Yan, Yi Sun, and Xiaowei Li. Bzip: A compact data memory system for utxo-based blockchains.Journal of Systems Architecture, 109:101809, 2020

    2020

  50. [50]

    Reality-based utxo ledger.Dis- tributed Ledger Technologies: Research and Practice, 2(3):1–33, 2023

    Sebastian M ¨uller, Andreas Penzkofer, Nikita Polyanskii, Jonas Theis, William Sanders, and Hans Moog. Reality-based utxo ledger.Dis- tributed Ledger Technologies: Research and Practice, 2(3):1–33, 2023

    2023

  51. [51]

    Bitcoin ordinal nft: Everything you need to know, 2024

    Kyle Torpey. Bitcoin ordinal nft: Everything you need to know, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-15. URL: https://www.investopedia.com/what-are- bitcoin-ordinals-7486436

    2024

  52. [52]

    Bigchaindb: a scalable blockchain database.white paper, BigChainDB, pages 53–72, 2016

    Trent McConaghy, Rodolphe Marques, Andreas M ¨uller, Dimitri De Jonghe, Troy McConaghy, Greg McMullen, Ryan Henderson, Sylvain Bellemare, and Alberto Granzotto. Bigchaindb: a scalable blockchain database.white paper, BigChainDB, pages 53–72, 2016

    2016

  53. [53]

    Discontinuing tendermint core v0.35: A postmortem on the new networking layer, 2022

    Interchain. Discontinuing tendermint core v0.35: A postmortem on the new networking layer, 2022. Accessed: 2024-10-15. URL: https: //medium.com/the-interchain-foundation/discontinuing-tendermint-v0- 35-a-postmortem-on-the-new-networking-layer-3696c811dabc

    2022

  54. [54]

    Covenantsql, 2019

    CovenantSQL Community. Covenantsql, 2019. Accessed: 2024-10-15. URL: https://github.com/CovenantSQL/CovenantSQL

    2019

  55. [55]

    A blockchain- based database system for decentralized information management

    Dekai Yan, Xiaohua Jia, Jiangang Shu, and Rutao Yu. A blockchain- based database system for decentralized information management. In 2021 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  56. [56]

    Blockchain meets database: Design and implementation of a blockchain relational database.arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.01919, 2019

    Senthil Nathan, Chander Govindarajan, Adarsh Saraf, Manish Sethi, and Praveen Jayachandran. Blockchain meets database: Design and implementation of a blockchain relational database.arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.01919, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1903

  57. [57]

    Falcondb: Blockchain-based collaborative database

    Yanqing Peng, Min Du, Feifei Li, Raymond Cheng, and Dawn Song. Falcondb: Blockchain-based collaborative database. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data, pages 637–652, 2020

    2020

  58. [58]

    Resilientdb: Global scale resilient blockchain fabric.arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.00160, 2020

    Suyash Gupta, Sajjad Rahnama, Jelle Hellings, and Mohammad Sadoghi. Resilientdb: Global scale resilient blockchain fabric.arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.00160, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  59. [59]

    Veritas: Shared verifiable databases and tables in the cloud

    Lindsey Allen, Panagiotis Antonopoulos, Arvind Arasu, Johannes Gehrke, Joachim Hammer, James Hunter, Raghav Kaushik, Donald Kossmann, Jonathan Lee, Ravi Ramamurthy, et al. Veritas: Shared verifiable databases and tables in the cloud. In9th Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR), pages 1–9, 2019

    2019

  60. [60]

    Rollstore: Hybrid onchain- offchain data indexing for blockchain applications.IEEE Transac- tions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 36(12):9176–9191, 2024

    Qi Lin, Binbin Gu, and Faisal Nawab. Rollstore: Hybrid onchain- offchain data indexing for blockchain applications.IEEE Transac- tions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 36(12):9176–9191, 2024. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2024.3436514

    doi:10.1109/tkde.2024.3436514 2024

  61. [61]

    PhD thesis, University of Guelph, 2016

    Ethan Buchman.Tendermint: Byzantine fault tolerance in the age of blockchains. PhD thesis, University of Guelph, 2016

    2016

  62. [62]

    Ml on chain: The case and taxonomy of machine learning on blockchain

    Binbin Gu, Abhishek Singh, Yinan Zhou, Juncheng Fang, and Faisal Nawab. Ml on chain: The case and taxonomy of machine learning on blockchain. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), pages 1–18, 2023.doi:10.1109/ ICBC56567.2023.10174908

    arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    A vision for autonomous blockchains backed by secure hardware

    Kai Mast, Lequn Chen, and Emin G ¨un Sirer. A vision for autonomous blockchains backed by secure hardware. InProceedings of the 4th Workshop on System Software for Trusted Execution, pages 1–6, 2019

    2019

  64. [64]

    Tebds: A trusted execution environment-and-blockchain-supported iot data sharing system.Future Generation Computer Systems, 140:321– 330, 2023

    Hui Xie, Jun Zheng, Teng He, Shengjun Wei, and Changzhen Hu. Tebds: A trusted execution environment-and-blockchain-supported iot data sharing system.Future Generation Computer Systems, 140:321– 330, 2023

    2023

  65. [65]

    Spds: A secure and auditable private data sharing scheme for smart grid based on blockchain.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 17(11):7688–7699, 2020

    Yuntao Wang, Zhou Su, Ning Zhang, Jianfei Chen, Xin Sun, Zhiyuan Ye, and Zhenyu Zhou. Spds: A secure and auditable private data sharing scheme for smart grid based on blockchain.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 17(11):7688–7699, 2020

    2020

  66. [66]

    Erc-721 non-fungible token standard,

    Ethereum Community. Erc-721 non-fungible token standard,

  67. [67]

    URL: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/standards/tokens/ erc-721/

  68. [68]

    Ipfs: An open system to manage data without a central server, 2024

    IPFS Community. Ipfs: An open system to manage data without a central server, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-15. URL: https://ipfs.tech/

    2024

  69. [69]

    Erc-1155 multi-token standard, 2024

    Ethereum Community. Erc-1155 multi-token standard, 2024. URL: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/standards/tokens/erc-1155/

    2024

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 12, 2026.